Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joe-Z | Hacker News Reader

What some people pay to go to concerts is just insane to me. RHCP? Huge fan, but €100+ for a concert? No way!

I‘ve been to a lot of concerts, but I think I never paid more than 50€ for a show (and even that was an exception, think „Rancid is in Europe for the first time in 10 years!“). I guess I‘m not the typical concert-goer, because even IF RHCP (not hating or anything that‘s just the most recent example) offered cheaper tickets, I‘d still be in a giant stadium, 100‘s of meters from the stage. At that point, I might as well just watch the DVD.

EDIT: Forgot to get my point across: Concerts shouldn‘t be a big business, it‘s supposed to be about a connection between an artist and her fans.

View on HN

Why should one of the biggest alt rock bands of all time charge less for shows, so you can go? I can’t imagine anyone but Foo Fighters fit into the same category and are more popular.

Literally millions of fans want to go to their shows, charging less would only mean they sell out in seconds rather than minutes.

His comment is an example of market forces. At 100 dollars they priced him and others out.

If millions will go see a show why hide the service charge/fee? Why not auction all tickets?

My partner works in live theater. I go to a lot of theater.

After you pay basic building operating expenses, pay the actors, the stagehands, the directors, the marketers, the understudies, the overtime for when shit goes wrong, the orchestra, the software engineers building your motor software, the mechanics fixing the shop truck... You end up with razor-thin, to negative margins.

Performance art is not an industry where anyone but the outliers get fabulously rich.

Concerts shouldn‘t be a big business, it‘s supposed to be about a connection between an artist and her fans.

First and foremost, it's about an artist making a living, and to that end, figuring out at what price point she can make the most money.

If you want to go to a cheap concert, become a fan of artists that people richer than you don't like.

> If you want to go to a cheap concert, become a fan of artists that people richer than you don't like.

This contradicts the egalitarian ethos most musicians and their fans espouse.

Well sure, that's part of TM's value add. Musicians can get the money they want without damaging their brand.

I would like to question the "most" there though. Maybe egalitarianism is a strong theme in your preferred genre. Mine is more "get money, get paid" and "bitches aint shit".

> I would like to question the "most" there though.

Good point! Definitely had blinders on when I wrote that.

> Concerts shouldn‘t be a big business

Most artists, including some big-name artists, can't afford to charge less than they do. They make almost nothing from old-fashioned record deals and even less from streaming.

The concept of a "big-name artist" needs to die. Those expectations are crazy -- that you need to sell out every major venue in every major city to make money. It's an industry of rent-seekers and Ticketmaster is a symptom of the disease.

This is why you hear Taylor Swift complaining about Spotify royalties but not your favorite indie bands. We're seeing a shift towards the long-tail that's only going to accelerate as future generations are brought up on streaming instead of mass-marketed music.

The T Swift issue you describe has everything to do with negotiating a direct deal with Apple, there was never any truth to it.

The way Spotify works she probably would have received the lion’s share of the artist portion of all Spotify ad/subscription revenue the month her album came out based on listen time. Apple just gave her marketing/guarantee money on top.

I know a couple of people from local bands, and they all get basically nothing from streaming. What little they make is made from shows and merch sales.

So the question is how many people are at the show because they found the band on Spotify/Pandora/Youtube/etc? My guess is it's a pretty significant chunk. It's the best marketing tool independent artists have ever had, especially compared to the days when you had to buy/borrow a physical CD just to check out their music.

Musician here.

For most local bands, nobody discovers you on Spotify. People find out about your band because you shared a show with another band they like.

After you are discovered by the new fan, they may later search for you on Spotify. But Bandcamp is more likely.

That assumes they even remember who you are. You have to play multiple shows in some areas, make a big impact on the audience, maybe have your stuff played on the local college station and then, just maybe, people will give a shit about you.

Lots of good music on bandcamp with less than 30 plays, and that's why.

Fair enough. I think it's mostly an advantage where you're big enough to tour but not big enough to consistently sell out your shows.

In my experience, people go to shows with local bands because they're either an opening act for a bigger more well-known band (as ssaew333 mentioned), or because they've already seen them before at a festival, or because of recommendations from their friends. Word of mouth is huge when it comes to smaller bands.

What streaming does is that it makes it so much easier to check out a band when a friend says "hey, give this band a listen, they're pretty good!". The initial recommendation comes from a friend, usually not the streaming service.

As someone who don't like big venues, find that tickets nowadays are too expensive ... and made an exception to see RHCP on their last tour (though it's less expensive in Europe and it's not seated), I agree with you. Well at least they had a innovative light show and it's been said their crew is very well taken care of.

Also, to be on topic, their tour is managed by Live Nation IIRC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com